[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

Fri Jun 29 21:30:53 PDT 2007

Ok, time for an unpopular viewpoint.  Are we taking this too far?  Where 
do we draw the line between protection of the public and this man's 
rights?  I understand that he lost many rights when he did what he did.  
But couldn't we be taking things too far?

Yes, binoculars can enable his voyeurism.  However, he can actually see 
without them through his eyeballs.  Should we gouge them out as a 
precaution?

I agree with you on the questions about why he was let out on parole so 
early, I agree that he's probably at high risk to reoffend.  I think we 
would be better off if he served more of his original sentence.  I 
understand that children need to be protected.  But where do we draw the 
line?   We're posting this man's episodes of masturbation on a public forum.

I see the makings of a witch-hunt here, and it makes me uncomfortable.

Just my opinion.

Paul

Art Deco wrote:
> Here is a letter from one of the persons providing sexual offender 
> treatment to Steven Sitler.  This letter is found as part of a /Report 
> of Probation Violation/ filed in the court by Senior Probation Officer 
> Jackye Squires Leonard.
>  
>  
>
> Dalton Lombard, D.Min, LCPC
>
> P O Box 1911
>
> Lewiston, Id. 83501
>
>  
>
> June 18, 2007
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Jackie Squires
>
> Probation and Parole
>
> Moscow Idaho 83843
>
>  
>
> RE. Steven Shier
>
>  
>
> Dear Ms. Squires,
>
>  
>
> This note is in response lo our Telephone conversation today. During 
> the weekly check in time for the offender group I lead for Valley 
> Treatment Specialties Mr. Sitler reported that he had masturbated on 
> two occasions during the previous week. When asked for more detail 
> about the circumstances and fantasies he experienced during his 
> masturbation he reported that he had been looking in a neighbor's 
> window with his binoculars. As a result he became aroused and later 
> masturbated. He denied viewing anyone at the residence but 
> acknowledged that he was aroused by looking in the window. He stated 
> to the group that voyeurism is one of the behaviors be engaged in 
> prior to and leading up to the offences he was convicted of.
>
>  
>
> I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler 
> considering he had been out of jail less than a month at the lime he 
> reported the behavior. In my mind this behavior constitutes a 
> violation of his parole and of his treatment contract with Valley 
> Treatment Specialties.
>
>  
>
> Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
>
>  
>
> /s/
>
> Dalton Lombard
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The contents of this letter and other events raise some questions.
>
>  
>
> First, with respect to the binoculars:
>
>  
>
> 1.    When did Sitler acquire the binoculars?
>
> 2.    Did he previously possess them and someone returned them to him, 
> did he lately acquire them, or did someone lately acquire them for him?
>
>  
>
> Given his history of voyeurism and its leading up pedophilic incidents:
>
>  
>
> 3.    What was his motivation for either acquiring or keeping the 
> binoculars?
>
> 4.    Shouldn't the possession of binoculars been a no-no in his 
> probation agreement?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Second, considering the comment "I consider this to be a very high 
> risk behavior for Mr. Sitler" from his therapist:
>
>  
>
> 5.    Why was bail granted at all?
>
> 6.    Is he not a high risk to reoffend?
>
> 7.    Why hasn't a Motion to Revoke Probation been filed by the 
> prosecuting attorney so that an evidentiary hearing can be held and a 
> decision whether to revoke probation or not be made by the court?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> There is a new letter from Dr. Lombard to Judge Stegner now in the file:
>
>  
>
> 8.    Why has this letter been sealed?
>
> 9.    Aren't the citizens whose children who are now at risk with 
> Sitler out on probation entitled to the information which would allow 
> them to:
>
>        a.    Evaluate the risk?
>
>        b.    Express their opinions to the prosecutor, media, etc.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Sitler was ordered by the court to vacate his current residence on 
> June 19, 2007.  Today is June 29, 2007.  The screen snapshot just 
> below was taken at 7:30 pm today (06/29/07).
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> According to the Idaho Central Sexual Offender Website 
> http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html Sitler 
> is obligated to:
>
>  
>
> Within 2 working days of changing the address or location of residence 
> within the county where the sex offender is registered, the offender 
> must complete an address change form in person with the sheriff of 
> that county of the change.
>
>  
>
> OR
>
>  
>
> Within 5 working days of moving to another state, the registered sex 
> offender must provide written notice of the move to the central sex 
> offender registry. The person must also register in the other State 
> within the time period required by that State, but not to exceed 10 days.
>
>  
>
> 10.    Has Sitler complied with the above but for administrative 
> ineptitude his State of Idaho sexual offender profile has not yet been 
> updated?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> As of now, a status hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday, 
> July 2nd at 2:00 pm.  Since schedules can change, those interested 
> should call the Clerk of the Court's office early Monday to check for 
> any change (Courthouse:  882-8580).
>  
>  
>
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID  83843
>  
> (208) 882-7975
> waf at moscow.com <mailto:waf at moscow.com>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070629/17dc183d/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 84281 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070629/17dc183d/attachment-0001.png 